PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES 1
SONYA DHILLON
LECTURE 6
Jury Decision Making
Canada VS US: from lecture 5
In Canada, most cases are judged without a jury
In Canada, there is a presumption that jurors are not biased and can be
impartial
In the US there is a presumption that jurors are inherently biased and must
be challenged
In US, because of the system/rules, they are assumed to be biased
information that may bias jury people can effect them because of rules
In Canada, jurors do not make decisions regarding sentencing except
sometimes for 2 degree murder, they can suggest it
Challenge for Cause
Legal mechanism in place to challenge jurors as to whether they would be
impartial with respect to a particular issue
Particular issues: racial bias, sexual orientation, religion, anything that has
an air of reality of prejudice within the community
Has to be proved to the judge or they wont allow challenge for cause
Once its been proven once, you dont have to prove it again because of
stare decisis - precedence
Must establish a reasonable inference of potential bias in the population
Its in the community where the trial is taking place
Judge decides whether a challenge is warranted and has final approval of any
questions to be put to the jury
Defendant is _____, and you as their lawyer think that theres an air of
reality that theres potential bias and you ask for challenge for cause and
you give judge results from questionnaire that shows prejudice and the
judge doesnt prove it then defendant will definitely appeal!
R v. Williams: native defendant, not allowed challenge for cause appealed and
other judge allowed it
Canada and USA Challenge for Cause - pretrial
In the US, there are long and personal challenges done by the lawyers and
adjudicated by the trial judge often involving jury consultants
Pretrial
Can ask huge questionnaires
OJ Simpson Void ires lasted 8 months
In Canada, the only information available to the lawyers is name, address,
occupation, demeanor and physical appearance
Our isnt really a pretrial, its just a screening
Simplicity vs efficiency PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES 2
SONYA DHILLON
Challenge for cause
Jurors themselves responsible for decision as to whether the potential juror
is biased in Canada
Other peers in the jury panel determine bias regulating yourself
make it more salient
(Whereas its the judge in American system) person of authority
Challenge for cause
Allowed on grounds of pretrial publicity
Usually may be an adjournment, change of venue, but its along the
lines of have you heard about this case
Sexual orientation
HIV status
Mental Disability
Drug involvement
Political or moral attitudes
Police credibility
Race or minority group status
what are the biases if there are biases are you able to tell me about it?
even if not prejudice, you can talk about it people feel uncomfortable
sometimes there is stigma
Impartiality
R. v. Parks (1993) goes along really well with social psychology
Its not just if the prejudice is there, but do you have the ability to ignore it or
not
Ability to ignore:
personal reasons
external motivations 2 biggest motivations: correct and looked upon
as good by our peers
Partiality has TWO components:
Attitudinal
prejudice
Behavioural
discrimination
R. v. Parks (1993), 24 C.R (4 ) 81h
Air of reality
Ontario Court of Appeals took judicial notice that . . .there is a realistic
possibility that a juror will be influenced in the performance of his or her
judicial duty on the basis of racial bias
Supreme Court of Canada reiterates this precedent in R. v. Williams (1998) PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES 3
SONYA DHILLON
Challenge for Cause
Select first two triers
On the basis of the potential jurors answer to the challenge for cause
question(s), the trier decides whether the potential juror is acceptable or
unacceptable to sit on the upcoming trial
2 people randomly selected, asked if biased or not, and are selected to
be triers
2 triers, judge, lawyers, audience
potential juror asked question by lawyer, and 2 triers deliberate and
say if they allow them or not
triers will not be jurors in the trial
then 1 trier leaves, 2 trier and 1 jury member are now the 2
deliberators for the new person that comes in to be deliberated on
lawyer can use preemptory challenge triers can agree or disagree
Legally, having a bias does not necessarily indicate you are partial
Or impartial
There are 2 components to impartiality attitude and behaviour
Problem: people want to look good in front of this huge audience
motivation to be liked and not look bad in front of peers
Doesnt actually matter if theyre lying or not, because theyre
saying it to not look bad they will try really hard to decide the
case only on the evidence at hand bias disappears
Swearing in Triers dont need to know the quotes for exam;
Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this court shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Do you swear that you will well and truly try whether one of the jurors stands
acceptable or unacceptable to try the accused, and a true verdict give according to
the evidence, so help you God?
Call first potential juror: 2 potential triers sitting there
Challenge Potential Juror
Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this court and triers sworn in
this challenge shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
R. v. Parks: The Challenge for Cause Question
As the presiding judge will tell you, in deciding whether or not the prosecution has
proven the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, a juror must
judge the evidence of the witnesses without bias, prejudice, or partiality (preamble).
Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice, or
partiality, be affected in any way by the fact that the accused is Black? (actual
question)
-are you prejudice and can you not be?
-asking you point blank very salient PSY328 SUMMER FINAL NOTES 4
SONYA DHILLON
-very small amount of people who are high in prejudice dont care about
social norms
-most people who are biased, will act non biased, because they dont want to
look bad
-American system VERY different, long and less obvious questions
Triers Deliberate
Triers, how do you find?
Peremptory Challenges* for any reason, they dont have to say why, I dont
want that juror
Were trying to get rid of bias but lawyers can remove jurors
randomly?
Skewing the jury
We dont know if they are such a good idea
Skewing the jury to make them act in an impartial way good to have
a mix of high and low prejudice people to cancel each other out
May cause jury to be a bit skewed less so than the states though
If acceptable, trier #1 rejoins jury pool and can be called as a juror still.
Not for this trial, but for some other trial
The challenged juror becomes the next trier.
The 1 juror becomes the next trier
Swear in juror #1.
Swear in triers again.
All the way until we have 12 people
Every single time the swearing in process happens every time
Trier Unacceptable
If triers find juror unacceptable or if either lawyer uses a peremptory
challenge, the juror is excused back to the jury office.
This challenged juror is free to be called for another jury pool later on.
Usually if youre not on a jury within 5ish days, youre usually let go
Challenge for Cause
R. v. Koh (1998)
-the process not only removes jurors who are forthright about the prejudices, it
sensitizes the remaining jurors about their duty to be impartial
-what does this sound like Fazios MODE model dual process model
-idea of your beliefs and endorsements of these beliefs
-if you endorse and know it as well thats prejudice
-getting rid of people who endorse it
MODE model FAZIO
Slide 17 NOTES IN SLIDES FOR THIS
Characteristics of the Jury
A Jury of Ones Peers
1) Representativeness
More
Less
